myFlohmarkt Flea Market Catalog

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: unknown or non-public UUIDs return a not_found result, which is useful failure-mode behavior an agent should anticipate. The enumerated return fields add some value but overlap with the existing output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then failure behavior. The long clause enumerating every returned field is the weakest part, since an output schema already exists and re-listing fields is partly redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-param lookup with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers what is fetched, when to use it, where the id comes from, and the not_found failure mode. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single param has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning. It does: the id is identified as the UUID format and, more importantly, as the value returned in the id field of search_events or recently_updated_events, which is provenance the schema cannot convey.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the full public details of one German flea market by its UUID') and enumerates the returned domain fields, so the agent knows exactly what this retrieves. It explicitly names the sibling tools whose id field feeds it, distinguishing it from search_events and recently_updated_events.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear selection rule: 'Use it when a search hit is not enough to answer about price, address or what is sold,' which tells the agent to reach for this after a search. It also names where the required id comes from. No explicit when-not condition is given, but the routing is unambiguous in practice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the result ordering is newest-change-first and the corpus is limited to the public catalogue. It stops short of describing pagination or the meaning of the limit parameter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly written sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns and in what order, the second handles routing. No filler or repetition of the name/title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Purpose, scope, ordering and the sibling alternative are all present; the only gap is the absence of any statement about the limit parameter's effect or default.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter 'limit' has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned anywhere in the description. The schema's default/min/max make it largely self-explanatory, but the rubric requires the description to compensate at low coverage, and it does not (e.g. it never says how many results are returned by default or how to page).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the most recently added or updated German flea markets'), plus the scope ('public my-flohmarkt.de catalogue') and ordering ('newest change first'). This is clearly distinguishable from get_event and search_events without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names the use case ('see what is new without a search query') and the alternative with its selecting condition ('use search_events when you know the city, PLZ, date range or area'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: the 50-result cap, the dataAsOf freshness timestamp, the 100 km radius ceiling, and the source of truth for the data. It does not discuss error behavior or empty-result handling, keeping it just under a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences with zero filler: purpose and source first, then the filtering modes and the radius constraint, then the return-shape summary. Every sentence adds information an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, yet the description still usefully previews the hit fields (title, date, times, PLZ, city, coordinates, market type, URL), the result cap and the dataAsOf timestamp. Combined with the filter and radius constraints, nothing needed to invoke this read-only search correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, and it largely does: query = free text, city = city name or PLZ, dateFrom/dateTo = date range, and the coupled lat/lng/radiusKm triple with its 100 km maximum. Only limit's default of 10 is not restated, but the 50-result hard cap is disclosed instead.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Search German flea markets') and pins the source catalogue (my-flohmarkt.de), including the German market-type vocabulary it covers. An agent can distinguish this list/search tool from get_event (single market) and recently_updated_events without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete usage context: filter by free text, city/PLZ, date range, or radius, and states the hard requirement that radius searches need lat, lng and radiusKm together (max 100 km). It stops short of naming when to prefer a sibling such as get_event, so it is clear context without explicit alternatives or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.